**We’re deepening our Brexit coverage as negotiations between the EU and U.K. intensify. As part of this investment, only Brexit Pro subscribers will have access to Brexit Files after September 22, along with additional Pro features like Pro Calendar, Pro Alerts, and exclusive conference calls with our journalists after each round of negotiations. Send us a note at pro@politico.eu**

MEP TESTING CONFLICT OF INTERESTS RULES: Our colleague Bjarke Smith-Meyer reported on Thursday about a potential conflict of interest involving German center-right MEP Markus Ferber. He was the European Parliament’s point man on MiFID II — the updated Markets in Financial Instruments Directive that will radically change how financial instruments are traded and how asset managers invest their money when it takes effect in January 2018. But in emails seen by POLITICO, Ferber wrote to investors endorsing a product named TIPER that offers the ability to search, scrutinize and compare the risks associated with different financial instruments, and which he says is compliant with the MiFID II regulation. The pitch was offered through a foundation Ferber co-founded with the CEO of the company that produces TIPER, PeoplesFinancials, which says its aim is “to empower small investors.” There is no evidence that Ferber draws a salary or otherwise financially benefits from his promotional activities. But his failure to disclose his involvement in his foundation possibly puts him in violation of the European Parliament’s rules.

Oops: Ferber told POLITICO he believed there was no conflict of interest as there was no financial gain. However, in an email sent to colleagues after POLITICO’s story was published, he said he would update his declaration of interest (it was not listed on his parliamentary webpage as of Friday morning) and had sought advice from the Parliament’s committee on the code of conduct of members. The office of Danuta Hübner, a member of the advisory committee and chair of the constitutional affairs committee, said they could not confirm if Ferber had been in contact as “its work remains confidential.”

Reaction: Some of Ferber’s peers have expressed their unease, as have investors and anti-corruption watchdogs. German far-left MEP Fabio de Masi argued that Ferber’s connection to the financial product should have disqualified him from his role in negotiating financial regulation. Transparency International sent a formal complaint to Parliament President Antonio Tajani.

WORKERS OF THE 21ST CENTURY UNITE: It’sa dispute that started in New York but is now playing out across Europe, with a long list of EU and national regulators and policymakers involved. The target: McDonald’s, that giant of global capitalism and the world’s second largest private-sector employer. The ultimate goal: Improve the employment conditions of fast-food workers worldwide.

While the objective isn’t novel, the means for achieving it are — at least for the trade union sector: The movement known in the U.S. as the Fight for $15, described as the country’s biggest social movement since the 1980s, has borrowed a number of tricks from the campaigns of environmental NGOs in an effort to force McDonald’s to the negotiating table. The U.S.-based Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has teamed up with counterparts and stakeholders across the world, including France’s largest union, the Confédération Générale du Travail, consumer groups like Italy’s Codacons, charities such as the U.K.’s War on Want, and the European Public Service Union. The latter is not an obvious bedfellow for the Fight for $15, but they found common cause on the question of fair taxation. Others want to change McDonald’s business model. They even overcame their unease with all things corporate and hired lawyers and lobbyists, with the Transparency Register listing GPlus and Arcturus Group as working for the SEIU.

It’s protest time: The movement has spawned strikes in a few European countries, antitrust complaints in Italy and France, inquiries by the Commission and MEPs into working conditions, and a tax probe in France. But the jewel in the crown has been the movement’s role in stoking a state aid probe into McDonald’s by Europe’s antitrust commissioner Margrethe Vestager. A similar probe is set to cost Apple €13 billion plus, and Brussels is awash with speculation of an imminent verdict against the fast-food giant. At the heart of the probe is the mismatch between a global firm and national tax systems. Critics say McDonald’s exploits a similar mismatch to push down working conditions and pay.

— McDonald’s declined to comment for this piece. It has said in the past that it pays “all the taxes that are owed” including more than $2.5 billion in corporate taxes in the EU between 2011-2015 “with an average tax rate approaching 27 percent.” In a letter to MEPs obtained by Brussels Influence, it said “McDonald’s and its franchisees are committed to being responsible employers and to providing development and progression opportunities as well as flexibility to our staff.”

Will it pay off? Only time will tell if McDonald’s can be forced to the negotiating table. But if they are, expect to see more of these complex social coalitions, built around clear, one-off objectives rather than worrying too much about whether world-views are aligned.

GLYPHODRAMA RETURNS: National experts are expected to discuss the Commission’s proposal to renew the controversial weedkiller glyphosate on October 4, and the lobbying campaign on both sides has geared up in recent days.

Monsanto said no to a hearing: Last week the chemicals firm declined to attend a parliamentary hearing scheduled for October 11 on whether it tried to suppress information about the potential dangers of its Roundup herbicide. Monsanto argued in a letter that it does “not feel that the discussion as proposed is an appropriate forum to consider these issues.”

Getting tough: Several MEPs who blasted Monsanto’s decision not to attend the hearing told Brussels Influence that they were going to request another meeting. If the firm still refuses to comply, some EU lawmakers said they would push for the Parliament to cut off Monsanto’s parliamentary access. The company is unfazed, with communications manager Brian Carroll saying “our colleagues with parliamentary access badges comply fully to all rules of the European Parliament.”

VESTAGER’S EXPERTS: European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager is to set up a panel of experts to discuss the future of antitrust enforcement. She made the announcement in a speech in Washington, and cited challenges such as algorithms, big data and excessive market concentration. Details on the panel are sparse but she said the experts could come from “outside the Commission” and, it seems, from fields other than competition. As a spokesperson said: “EU competition policy does not happen in isolation.” It’s interesting to note that Vestager is unusual in not having any big-wigs acting as special advisers. That may change. Expect plenty of applications from big-thinkers interested in advising Europe’s coolest commissioner on the intricacies of antitrust enforcement.

Skill-searching: Vestager extrapolated on the idea in an interview with Bloomberg: “Our basic rules are fine because some of the motives are the same: fear and greed combined with power,” she said. “Our challenge is of course to keep our tools sharp and develop new tools.”

THINK TANK FALLOUT: The reputations of Google, the New America Foundation and think tanks more generally were tarnished when the institution ejected antitrust researchers that had turned against the search engine, a major funder. Nicholas delved into the European angle of the dispute in a piece here, while our U.S. colleagues looked into the ideologies behind the split here.

ANTI-GOOGLE BRIGADE: The condemnations and lobbying came hard and fast after details of Google’s offer to EU antitrust regulators over Google Shopping emerged Monday. Foundem and the Open Internet Project were among those taking to the airwaves. Expect pressure to grow ahead of a September 28 deadline to implement the remedy. There is also confusion about what Google needs to do: Is it enough for it to just stop breaking the law, or does it have to try and heal the damage it has done? The answer depends on who you speak to.

REGISTER MY INTEREST: Last week, 37 new organizations signed up to the joint transparency register.